The issue I have with the views you’re expressing here is that you seem to be holding the establishment and the protesters to very different standards. On the subject of protesters using violence, you proclaim that violence is inherently destructive and needs to nipped in the bud. I can understand this view (and used to share it); but then you also dismiss complaints about the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protesters as pussy whining. These two views are incompatible. The only thing they have in common is that both have to ring of Stockholm Syndrome about them: Accept the judgment of the establishment. If you must respond, do it in a polite, orderly fashion that the people you are actually addressing when you protest (because of course, you aren’t marching against the police) can ignore at their leisure.

No. I don't hold them to different standards. I have never said that using pepper spray is right. I ONLY said that the POLICE were not wrong to use it, and consequently, they should not be blamed. I specifically stated that the rules they abide by are what's wrong.

__________________Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.

Its also a pretty racist country with a currently homophobic government where I wouldn't particularly want to live.

No arguments there. But that doesn’t disprove the link between violent protest & high standard of living, which is what we’re talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

Yeah, threatening violence sometimes gets you your way. Not anymore there, though, and it hasn't really worked here. What benefits have you noticed since the London riots?

Well, they didn't even begin as protests anywhere but Tottenham, where Mark Duggan was shot. By the time it had snowballed to other cities, they weren’t really “about” anything. This kind of aimless rioting is a totally different animal to a longstanding cultural tradition French protests.

Again, not saying violence is the answer too all problems or that the French model fits all situations. Just saying, you can’t deny there are situations in which it has served a positive purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

It becomes too exclusive for certain marginalized populations to participate in if it is made difficult for them, and becomes a farce of "true democracy" that way. Its true that movements that weren't inclusive went on to get things done, like the second wave of feminism, but the criticisms of homophobia and racism in the movement are well deserved and I certainly can't blame lesbian women and women of colour for not wanting to participate in organizations where white middle class women defined the issues.

So surely if the movement itself has merit in its conception and intent, the answer is to interrogate, improve and hold it to account when moving forward, as is now being done with 2nd wave feminism in a way that influences present-day theory and gender studies, rather than to write it off. The issue shouldn’t be “We’ve just realised our organization is directed mostly by white and middle-class concerns, so the whole thing is worthless”. It should be “So we’ve got this idea, but it’s not as inclusive as it needs to be. What can we do about that?”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

I haven't stopped supporting Occupy since, but I will if it becomes violent. One thing that people forget when it comes to violence is that in the end it easily backfires on women and children. When violent revolutions happen, when wars happen, sexual assault rates skyrocket. Its easy to talk of violence when we think of innocent casualties as poor people merely caught in the crossfire, but no one talks about the real risk of **** casualties. And I'm not particularly willing to cause violence and destruction that will harm so many innocents in such a way for men who dismiss other's rights as "pet issues".

Neither am I. As I already said, this is discussion about the theoretical utility of violence (including, though not limited to, property damage) – which, in the eyes of the establishment, can and often does include active resistance. This encompasses acts that many of us would not define as violence; not everyone arrested at protests is arrested for kicking off. You can be arrested or refusing to move (or, in the States, pepper-sprayed) or for ‘obstructing’, which with some police officers can mean being close by and getting in their way when something does kick off. I know several people this has happened to. A major reason it tends to happen to individuals or smaller groups is sheer logistics – it’s impractical with large groups of people. It is therefore frequently arbitrary in its application. Yet to resist arrest on this basis is a crime.

Definitions of violence are not limited to the really destructive stuff in the eyes of the police. What you seem to be saying is “I can get behind the breaking of a kettle because the whole idea is stupid as fuck, but I don’t support **** and forms of violence which seriously harm people”. Good. We’re on the same page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

Generally by the public and the police but pacifist movements have had diverse opinions on the issue.

Well, of course. However we weren’t talking about pacifist movements – you told me I was confusing my definitions when I referred to its general classification as violent crime, and I’m merely pointing out that actually, I didn’t.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

And if property damage constitutes an act of violence, is graffiti violent?

You would need to ask someone who knows British criminal law a lot better than I do re: its technical classification. Personally I wouldn’t accept that it does. There’s actually a guy in London who calls himself Banksy, and works anonymously making street art to that effect. Check him out: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2KwXuo...raffiti-artist

(He’s worth a google if you like - not all his stuff is on his site, and he spawned some pretty decent imitators too.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

Throwing that bomb won't get you your pension back. I would sympathize with someone who did so out of frustration, but I don't think a whole lot of other people would, I very much doubt the media would report that was even your reason. What revolution could you hope to accomplish that way if the popular discourse is against you?

Well, again – the popular discourse would usually require some common cause with you. It’s most common for people who have been affected by an issue to support efforts to remedy it, whether that’s donating to cancer research or marching against university cuts in the UK (marches were overwhelmingly attended by university lecturers, students, and younger students who would probably never reach university under the cuts). But when everyone’s in the shitter, this stuff has a way of spreading. And to return to the example which sparked this whole thing off, the popular discourse in France is very much with the protesters. It also marginalizes those who live outside this mainstream discourse, as you point out; that’s wrong and I agree with your complaints of racism and homophobia against the French gov, but still, you can’t claim that it has therefore achieved nothing.

The utility of protests of any kind varies according to location, culture, sociohistorical background and more of each society… no single example will suit all cultures (or even all protests). Another reason I am not suggesting we all start rioting or smashing shit up; I can see how I might have sounded like that early on, but I hope that’s clear now. I don’t think we can write off active or even violent resistance, however, or deny that it can actually bring positive results depending on exactly what’s up. Don’t forget that forcibly breaking a kettle, which you didn’t seem to take issue with on the grounds that it’s a fucking stupid way of trying to defuse heated situations, is considered an act of violence for which you can be arrested.

I guess what I'm really saying is that obeying the police in injustice just because they're the police is pretty much the death-knell of citizens' rights. However, resisting them often veers into what they would term violence in examples like the above. And I'm whole-heartedly okay with that kind of 'violence'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

The thing about using that kind of violence is that its hard to know what you're achieving by doing so. In the end, what are the long term consequences of tipping over a police car or bombing a bank? The bank can probably afford to close the branch or repair damage, the police can probably now justify brute force and cracking down.

As I said above – context counts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

The quote you made was specifically saying that nonviolent protest is something the establishment loves and encourages.

To be honest, I was more about the "people in power are not going to disappear voluntarily" part. Apathy drives me crazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

They're not ignoring it. They're doing everything in their power to make it go away and discredit them, and they become justified if there's a riot. And the thing about what Versus was saying is true, a lot of people were unaware and/or okay with the police being able to pepper spray at will for years and years and years, and now only because white middle class kids are getting it in the face is anyone upset.

And that’s wrong. But it doesn’t make this right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

Pepper spray actually is considered very low on the range of force police are allowed to use, and I tried to find stories where it was used against Native protesters like that and had no one complain, but sadly I couldn't find a story involving Native protesters that didn't also involve beatings. Its shocking to look at but as far as police violence goes, its really tame. Its not right but its been tolerated til now, I can only hope this makes people rethink about the ways we empower police to use violence.

Then I think we’re pretty much concurring on the core of the matter here. Only difference is that you’d say “It’s not right but it’s still pretty tame” whereas I’d say “It’s pretty tame but it’s still not right.” On the point that ALL of this shit needs looking at, and not just that which affects the white middle-classes, I agree whole-heartedly.

No arguments there. But that doesn’t disprove the link between violent protest & high standard of living, which is what we’re talking about.

Violence can get you something really quickly sometimes, but it is from far from the only means of achieving an end. If its not necessary, why do it, especially when you live in a society where it isn't acceptable like it is in France? Why do we continue to discredit love and nonviolence as detrimental to the cause like your quote has, when it has served women particularly well (has there ever been a feminist riot? Would France allow Muslim women to dress themselves if they riot?), but goes outside the patriarchal definition of revolutionary force.

Quote:

Well, they didn't even begin as protests anywhere but Tottenham, where Mark Duggan was shot. By the time it had snowballed to other cities, they weren’t really “about” anything. This kind of aimless rioting is a totally different animal to a longstanding cultural tradition French protests.

Again, not saying violence is the answer too all problems or that the French model fits all situations. Just saying, you can’t deny there are situations in which it has served a positive purpose.

Do the ends justify the means? And has it really made it that much better? After the 2005 riots, life has been much harder for immigrants and immigration became harder. Its kind of hard to say it got better when it only got better for people who were allowed to stay and were acceptably white and French.

Quote:

So surely if the movement itself has merit in its conception and intent, the answer is to interrogate, improve and hold it to account when moving forward, as is now being done with 2nd wave feminism in a way that influences present-day theory and gender studies, rather than to write it off. The issue shouldn’t be “We’ve just realised our organization is directed mostly by white and middle-class concerns, so the whole thing is worthless”. It should be “So we’ve got this idea, but it’s not as inclusive as it needs to be. What can we do about that?”

In order for that to happen, those with privilege need to make an honest effort to discuss difference and become inclusive rather than pay lip service and fall into the temptation of tokenizing. It can't be the 99% if only the 33% get a strong voice. Until then, its going to remain flawed. I never said it can't change, it just I remain wary until it does.

And no, the second wave was far from useless, but it was racist, homophobic and transphobic so god knows if I was around then if I would be included in the mainstream movement.

Quote:

Neither am I. As I already said, this is discussion about the theoretical utility of violence (including, though not limited to, property damage) – which, in the eyes of the establishment, can and often does include active resistance. This encompasses acts that many of us would not define as violence; not everyone arrested at protests is arrested for kicking off. You can be arrested or refusing to move (or, in the States, pepper-sprayed) or for ‘obstructing’, which with some police officers can mean being close by and getting in their way when something does kick off. I know several people this has happened to. A major reason it tends to happen to individuals or smaller groups is sheer logistics – it’s impractical with large groups of people. It is therefore frequently arbitrary in its application. Yet to resist arrest on this basis is a crime.

But most people never had problems with the criminalization of protesters before. Hell even with G20 I knew a lot of people who complained and said the protesters got what they deserved. I hope it changes, but its not like attacking police at this point is going to win the hearts and minds of the people, who are badly needed for direct democracy. Unless you think a minority movement should overthrow the government with violent means, this is the other option.

Quote:

Definitions of violence are not limited to the really destructive stuff in the eyes of the police. What you seem to be saying is “I can get behind the breaking of a kettle because the whole idea is stupid as fuck, but I don’t support **** and forms of violence which seriously harm people”. Good. We’re on the same page.

I probably wouldn't break through the kettle though. There's nothing the establishment loves more is a unruly riot and I would think kettling protesters is an attempt to basically troll them into becoming violent and unruly. I can't blame people for being herded and responding to the provocation, but I don't think its the totally correct response even yet.

Quote:

Well, again – the popular discourse would usually require some common cause with you. It’s most common for people who have been affected by an issue to support efforts to remedy it, whether that’s donating to cancer research or marching against university cuts in the UK (marches were overwhelmingly attended by university lecturers, students, and younger students who would probably never reach university under the cuts). But when everyone’s in the shitter, this stuff has a way of spreading. And to return to the example which sparked this whole thing off, the popular discourse in France is very much with the protesters. It also marginalizes those who live outside this mainstream discourse, as you point out; that’s wrong and I agree with your complaints of racism and homophobia against the French gov, but still, you can’t claim that it has therefore achieved nothing.

It hasn't achieved nothing, but again, its not like there was no other option and underprivileged populations were left to face the consequences. If I were to riot in the name of aboriginal rights, for example, guaranteed the already brutal racist oppression against aboriginal people would clamp down further. It is incredibly acceptable in Canada to oppress aboriginal peoples, so public discourse would be against me and support the actions against natives. We're outnumbered, we're going to lose. Movements that do not have large public sway usually do need to be nonviolent to change bigoted minds, and movements that are large enough to use violence don't really consider the consequences it would have for the people they continue to enjoy to completely ignore.

Quote:

The utility of protests of any kind varies according to location, culture, sociohistorical background and more of each society… no single example will suit all cultures (or even all protests). Another reason I am not suggesting we all start rioting or smashing shit up; I can see how I might have sounded like that early on, but I hope that’s clear now. I don’t think we can write off active or even violent resistance, however, or deny that it can actually bring positive results depending on exactly what’s up. Don’t forget that forcibly breaking a kettle, which you didn’t seem to take issue with on the grounds that it’s a fucking stupid way of trying to defuse heated situations, is considered an act of violence for which you can be arrested.

I'm not opposed to being arrested and I don't blame people who are goaded into playing into the police's hands. What I take issue with is the idea that nonviolence and love are not revolutionary forces, which again is what you suggested with your quote. Its a pet peeve of mine; the face of nonviolence typically are men of colour who we love to discredit and dismiss (Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi for example), but people forget how the feminist movement was compromised of many pacifists (eg Virginia Woolf) and exploded out of the anti-war movement in the 60s. We forget the German revolution and dismiss revolutions and resistances in other countries and I think it comes from a sexist, racist view that is afraid that might doesn't make right. Violence is the very predictable response to oppression that is gladly met with more of the same medicine, and to challenge the idea that violence is effective is to challenge the means of oppression that we all turn to in times of supposed need.

Quote:

I guess what I'm really saying is that obeying the police in injustice just because they're the police is pretty much the death-knell of citizens' rights. However, resisting them often veers into what they would term violence in examples like the above. And I'm whole-heartedly okay with that kind of 'violence'.

That kind of violence is easy, and obeying the police isn't what I'm arguing for AT ALL. Again, people lit themselves on fire, suffragists starved themselves, people are braving the elements all just to make their voices heard and their point made. Why are they the silly naive "passive" ones who merely comply and get nothing done?

Quote:

To be honest, I was more about the "people in power are not going to disappear voluntarily" part. Apathy drives me crazy.

They aren't, but you know, putting a pig in power instead of the farmer isn't so great either.

Quote:

Then I think we’re pretty much concurring on the core of the matter here. Only difference is that you’d say “It’s not right but it’s still pretty tame” whereas I’d say “It’s pretty tame but it’s still not right.” On the point that ALL of this shit needs looking at, and not just that which affects the white middle-classes, I agree whole-heartedly.

All I'm saying is that relatively speaking, its a small thing to get angry about when so much worse shit has happened that we gladly ignore.

__________________
Adorn your hearts, you who see the blossoms
At flower-viewing hall
For the Buddha does not exist
Apart from this.

I disagree with this. If the vast majority of people couldn't find it within themselves to fight for what they believe in, or simply for their lives and their future, then nothing would have gotten accomplished from the passing fancy of a few people. If this isn't the case, then Occupy protesters might as well pack their shit and go home.

Not necessarily. My argument is that the majority of people are most interested in issues which directly affect them and theirs (which is exactly how the present-day white middle class domination of western culture came about in the fist place). Now everyone’s in the shitter; hence, massive protests, the spread of Occupy to other countries, etc.

Honestly, do you really think there’d be Occupy camps in London & Melbourne if the recession only affected America? I don’t. But I don’t think that renders the protests worthless either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Versus

And further,

Don't talk to me about circumstances, consequences, or results achieved. I have a very vivid memory of killing people.

You know what? I don’t doubt that an experience like that gives you a huge appreciation for the weight of violence, even if it’s a very different kind to the kind I’m talking about. But it doesn’t mean no one else can possibly understand or have experience of it; it may not be the devastation of war but as a frequent protestor and volunteer support worker in some pretty scary places, I can assure you I’m familiar with what “not pretty” looks like up close.

In any case, it certainly doesn’t mean your moral judgments are above debate or criticism. Your life experience does not obligate people to accept the principles it has led you to and neither does anyone else’s. That’s why anecdotal evidence alone is seen as a shaky defence if any argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Versus

It is completely asinine for you to call me morally naive because I, more then anybody on this forum, know about the shades of gray and justification of violence. The difference is that I condemn it, regardless of all of that, while YOU justify one form of violence and condemn another. It is hypocritical beyond explanation.

Dude, aren’t you in the military? So, you condemn all forms of violence… while serving in the US army?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Versus

Like the monk that sets himself on fire and is willing to die for what he believes in, the protesters should take inspiration and at least recognize that they can't believe in something only so far as their comfort is assured.

Very much agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Versus

Like the monk that sets himself on fire and is willing to die for what he believes in, the protesters should take inspiration and at least recognize that they can't believe in something only so far as their comfort is assured.

Yes, you did. But I guess I felt like you took a very blasé attitude towards violence against the protestors (yes, using pepper spray counts as violence in that using it on someone without due cause can result in prosecution for assault), then went capslock at the suggestion that violent protests in France had achieved positive results. Seemed like a double-standard to me.

"No. I don't hold them to different standards. I have never said that using pepper spray is right. I ONLY said that the POLICE were not wrong to use it, and consequently, they should not be blamed. I specifically stated that the rules they abide by are what's wrong."

(Should be quote my last statement was responding to. I do not rule at cut & paste.)

You know the history of nonviolence is in itself mired with sexism and racism, right?
You mention Gandhi, the obvious example of nonviolence, but he was a very conservative man with very traditional roles. And why not give credit to the numerous other movements and people in the Indian independence movement? Why not remember that Gandhi staunchly opposed Nehru's call for total independence of Britain in the 30's? Why not remember that it was the militant Sri Aurobindo that considered Mira Alfassa his equal in leadership? What of Udham Singh, who assassinated Michael O'Dwyer, the governor responsible of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and in doing this Nehru claimed that Singh "kissed the noose so that we may be free."? What of the militant Aruna Asaf Ali, militant communist and the face of the youth in the Quit India Movement, who created the first women's political organization in India, the National Federation of Indian Women, within the auspices of the party?

As for Martin Luther King Jr., he did not want peace, he wanted love. And love is not always peaceful. Martin Luther King Jr. was the man who said "The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be… The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
Simply saying that Martin Luther King Jr. was all about non-violence is such an offensively stereotypical and inaccurate caricature of his ideas that it shouldn't be taught past second grade.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly

You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.

You know the history of nonviolence is in itself mired with sexism and racism, right?
You mention Gandhi, the obvious example of nonviolence, but he was a very conservative man with very traditional roles. And why not give credit to the numerous other movements and people in the Indian independence movement? Why not remember that Gandhi staunchly opposed Nehru's call for total independence of Britain in the 30's? Why not remember that it was the militant Sri Aurobindo that considered Mira Alfassa his equal in leadership? What of Udham Singh, who assassinated Michael O'Dwyer, the governor responsible of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and in doing this Nehru claimed that Singh "kissed the noose so that we may be free."? What of the militant Aruna Asaf Ali, militant communist and the face of the youth in the Quit India Movement, who created the first women's political organization in India, the National Federation of Indian Women, within the auspices of the party?

I mention Gandhi because people love to bring him up as a failure of pacifism, not because I think he was particularly successful. He is rightfully famous as one of the first prolific pacifists but I think people love to dig into him as a racist sexist bad person mostly because he was a man of colour who challenged the way we think about power and oppression.

Its not that Indian independence was an entirely peaceful one, but Gandhi seems to be dragged through the mud as a failure while extremists who killed and arrested thousands of those who were suspected of supporting his assassins are the true heroes of independence. And how well violence carried out is debatable, after all the Indian National Congress Party made a martyr of Udham Singh, and became an oppressive corrupt government in their own right.

Quote:

As for Martin Luther King Jr., he did not want peace, he wanted love. And love is not always peaceful. Martin Luther King Jr. was the man who said "The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be… The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
Simply saying that Martin Luther King Jr. was all about non-violence is such an offensively stereotypical and inaccurate caricature of his ideas that it shouldn't be taught past second grade.

King was very much inspired by Gandhi, who's nonviolent tactics he thought was the most moral way to fight oppression, and thought Gandhi employed Christianity better than any Christian could. He also believed that civil disobedience is perfectly respectable, but that you must accept your arrest afterwards. Later he became friends with Thich Nhat Hanh who inspired him to question the Vietnam War, and he became active in the peace movement. Did I miss somewhere where he condoned violence in the name of love? Just because he said the word "extremists" after saying Jesus was an extremist of love doesn't mean that was exactly a call to violence. He didn't shy away from the label as an extremist just because he stood up for social justice, like Jesus and Amos did. Who is labeled an extremist is after all pretty relative and doesn't necessitate violence.

__________________
Adorn your hearts, you who see the blossoms
At flower-viewing hall
For the Buddha does not exist
Apart from this.

Neither does the call of justice negate the need of violence. You did the same thing Versus did. The whole mantra of 'violence begets violence', yet you find it surprising to believe that maybe the violence of the multitude is the violence begotten by the state instead of backwards.
Plus, where the hell is this leftist utopia you live in in which Gandhi is criticized as a failure of pacifism instead of glorified as a messianic figure solely responsible for the independence of India?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly

You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.

Yeah, but you specifically quoted him from his Letters from a Birmingham Jail. He was criticized as an extremist for protesting there and was jailed as a result, and this letter is where he reclaims the label of "extremist". He also praises nonviolence and condemns other activists who according to him, are close to approaching violence. Its a long letter but he's not exactly ambigous about what his intentions were:

"You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest."

As for Gandhi, its not just the leftists who like to discredit him, I can't remember the last time took him as an important historical figure since like, high school history class. Activists of all ideologies have dismissed him as idealistic and naive at best, and a contemptible horrible man at worst.

__________________
Adorn your hearts, you who see the blossoms
At flower-viewing hall
For the Buddha does not exist
Apart from this.

Occupy Wall Street is like Fight Club: it was on the tip of everyone’s tongues, and they just gave it a name. We were all already thinking this, but we didn’t know what it was until it was here. The difference is that the first and second rule is you have to talk about it constantly. You don’t like something about it? Great, go down there and make your voice heard. You like this but you don’t like the approach? Go down there and influence the approach. You’d be surprised how easy it is. When you’re there, when you talk, people listen. [Comedian/Activist] Ted Alexandro called it a ‘Farmer’s Market for the Soul,’ and it is. You go down there and talk? People you’d dismiss, other people on the street, who you’d think: ‘they’re ignorant, they’re idiots’? You go down there, you’ll be amazed at the intelligence and the erudition. People really have thought about these things, but it just never comes up in conversation, or it does come up in conversation but people just don’t want to talk about it because they’ve just been beaten down with the hopelessness, with fears that the system is too big to fight, it’s too big to change…

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted byKontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted byBen Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.

The above link is to an article about the experience John did for Salon.com. What's really freaky about the whole thing is not just how he was arrested for taking pictures @ the protest, but how the supposedly "voluntary" retinal scans were handled:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Knefel

When we were finally brought to the final holding area for our arraignment we were informed that if we refused to submit to a retina scan we would likely be held overnight. The retina scan is a voluntary procedure that all 10 of us had already denied earlier that day. According to our lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild – who are heroes – the lieutenant on duty and the judge said that if we continued to refuse the scans we wouldn’t get out that night. With only a few exceptions due to personal commitments, we all stood in solidarity and refused to submit to the procedure. This was around 11 p.m. on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after our arrest. Several of the women arrested and a majority of the men were going to spend another night in prison to protest the ever expanding security state. In many ways, this final hurdle was the most egregious encroachment on our liberties. The retinal scan is a voluntary procedure, but if you don’t submit to it, you will be punished.

Privilege does not go quietly.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted byKontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted byBen Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.